JR AGAINST ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND [2024] ScotCS CSOH_64 (20 June 2024)

It is appropriate to transfer the petition to the Upper Tribunal given the nature of the issues, the Upper Tribunal's expertise, and absence of strong reasons against transfer; permission is granted only on grounds with real prospects of success, specifically paragraphs 49 to 55.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [2024] ScotCS CSOH_64
Parties: Petitioner: JR; Respondent: Advocate General for Scotland
Jurisdiction: Scotland
Judgment Date: 20 June 2024
Procedural Posture: Judicial Review / Permission and Transfer Determination
Outcome: Permission granted in part; petition transferred to Upper Tribunal.
Legal Topics: Certification of Claims as Clearly Unfounded, Transfer to Upper Tribunal, Permission for Judicial Review

Immigration Asylum Judicial Review Certification of Claims as Clearly Unfounded Transfer to Upper Tribunal Permission for Judicial Review

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Petitioner

Advocate General for Scotland

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Permission and Transfer Determination

Legal Issues

1 Should the application for judicial review be transferred from the Court of Session to the Upper Tribunal?
2 Should permission be granted for the petition to proceed?

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Permission granted in part; petition transferred to Upper Tribunal.

Orders

Permission granted on grounds in paragraphs 49 to 55 of the petition.
Permission refused on grounds in paragraphs 44 to 48 of the petition.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.